UK 'journalists' epitomize snotty attitude toward U.S. gun owners

Maybe it's a resentment that goes back to their unsuccessful attempt to disarm subjects that started a rebellion and lost them a colony, maybe it's jealousy at being denied trust afforded their American cousins, or maybe it's just being aware they are subjects of a queen. Regardless, the snotty attitude toward U.S. gun owners, famously exemplified by unwelcome import Piers Morgan, is alive and well in the British press.

"Glocker Moms: like soccer moms but with guns," reads the headline for the "Passnotes" column in The Guardian. "Glocker," get it? How clever the anonymous editorial writer must think he (or she?) is. While gender ought to be irrelevant, Julia Gorin over at Jewish World Review shared some sage insights about anti-gun males a few years back that might apply here, and Sarah Thompson, M.D. shared reasoned observations applicable to either sex Raging Against Self-Defense. Feigned "humor" aside, that's really what the column writer is doing.

The writer is terrified by the appearance of a woman with a gun? Really? That explains a lot right there. People are afraid of things they're ignorant about. That leads to prejudice, which combined with admitted fear and obvious resentment, can result in hate -- and when ignorant, fearful people hate, they often try to destroy.

"As in Glock, the renowned Austrian handgun manufacturer?" the feature then asks, returning to its headline and lede pun, just to make sure we noticed. Yeah, we got it the first time. If you need to repeat a punch line, you spoil the joke. Fouad's "it's funny because" shtick pretty much only works on "Family Guy," and it gets old there, too.

"This sounds to me like an American thing," our snarky subject of the queen opines, managing a feeble slap at both the U.S. and the NRA. Except it's not exclusively American if you consider women like "Tanya, a 38-year old graphic designer" in the Ukraine, training to resist a Russian invasion, or "Eta Wrobel, who began her resistance activities immediately after Germany invaded her native Poland in September 1939."

Not so funny anymore, is it? Now think about the people those women would appear "terrifying" to. So when our resident wit next asks "What sane woman wouldn't want one of those?" the question might actually reflect more on the person sarcastically asking it than on anyone else.

Not to be outdone, our privileged propagandist turns to no less a "trusted" source than The Atlantic [!] to put the spin on yet another anti-gun "study" with the claim "[S]tatistics show that women with access to firearms are much more likely to become homicide victims -- and to a greater extent than male gun-owners."

If I may: Mark Twain, quoting Disraeli, had something to say about statistics; and the credibility of agenda "science," particularly the kind that ignores the existence of defensive gun uses to present one-sided equations, is hardly the final word, especially since funding also seems to be one-sided. Thank goodness, at least, the writer couched his allegation with an "access to firearms" qualifier.

That's because a criminal can have "access to firearms" he or she does not own, especially if it has been stolen from another. Ownership is a moral and legal concept, and implies the possessor is law-abiding (principled civil disobedience exempted), recalling that felons are prohibited from having a gun.

Any meaningful study would then need to factor in the likelihood that criminal gun possessors will be involved in illegal and risky behaviors beyond those of the general population, and that their associations with similar criminal types pose varying degrees of elevated mortality dangers. Also, women who partner with such persons would be at higher risk for domestic violence, including with guns. Add in a higher propensity for substance abuse, along with depressing economic, health, moral, spiritual and emotional consequences of a criminal lifestyle, and it's hardly surprising that such people are immersed in destructive potentials.

So when our crusading journalist then asserts "The US already owns vastly more guns per person, as well as having a higher rate of gun deaths, than any other developed country," he/she is again conflating moral ownership with mere possession, and throwing in an arbitrary and meaningless "developed" qualifier as well.

Russia, with strict "gun control," isn't "developed"? Because no less a source than NPR admits "The U.S. Has More Guns, But Russia Has More Murders." And does it truly matter what the murder instrument is to the victim (Russia does not break its death numbers down)?

Our friend from across the pond is not quite through.

"What about giving every household their own vat of anthrax?" he/she asks. "Have they tried that?"

Now The Guardian is just being silly, ostensible "humor" column notwithstanding. Now the writer is just being desperate and insulting, which is really the only card that can be played here. But one more stab is taken at trying to be "serious" by offering a final zinger, the third tercio, if you will, intended to be the death blow for any argument that guns in private hands can be personally and socially beneficial.

"Do say: 'The rate of gun deaths in the US is more than 40 times higher than in the UK,'" the "Passnotes" pundit advises.

Oh, yes, do.

Arguments over violent crime rates and integrity of reporting techniques notwithstanding, let's examine if that disparity is truly due to guns. We can do that intuitively by looking at the membership of the NRA, arguably the most heavily-armed civilian population on the planet, and comparing their annual total and rate of "gun homicides" with those of the "gun free" UK.

How do our five million compare to their 63 million? How close to "0" are NRA members' tallies, anyway? And how close to "0" are other national gun rights advocacy groups, like JPFO? Is there any doubt that if there were numbers that could be exploited, the media and the anti-gunners would be all over them? And what if it turns out the UK has a rate more than 40 times higher (or more) than peaceable members of U.S. gun groups?

While no one has a crystal ball, it's safe to say we live in a volatile world and the chapter hasn't yet been written for the UK in the coming years. But with the contempt that's been shown to America's peaceable firearms owners by no shortage of sanctimonious critics from across the pond, it's also safe to say some of us won't feel too kindly if the call is ever again put out to "send a gun to defend a British home."